SENA, Armory Part 4, Individually Attested Patterns
WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content of SENA "searchable" and easier to find. If you think you find the information you seek here, go to the official home of SENA on the SCA Laurel Website to confirm the reference. [[1]]
A.4. Armory Individually Attested Patterns http:heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A4 A. Definitions: Any armorial design that does not fit within our core style rules may still be registered if it can be documented as following a pattern of period practice within the armorial style of a single time and place within the temporal scope of the Society. [Formerly known as Regional Style under Documented Exceptions.] This time and place may be in Europe or may be from a non-European period armorial tradition, such as Islamic or Japanese heraldry. We call such a design an Individually Attested Pattern. All elements in an Individually Attested Pattern must be found in that single time and place, including charges, arrangement of charge groups, and lines of division. Documentation under the Individually Attested Pattern rules does not exempt a design from conflict, presumption, or offense rules. For example, Sable, a torii gate Or between three panthers argent, spotted of many tinctures would not be registerable as an Individually Attested Pattern, as it mixes charges from both Japanese and England. Any submissions documented under this section of the rules must be able to have the overall design blazoned in Western European blazon, including tinctures. If necessary, when there is no Western European term for a charge, a non-Western European term may be registerable on a case by case basis, presuming that a term can be found which will allow reproduction from the blazon. If the submission is not otherwise blazonable without creating or borrowing terms that cannot be easily understood by the average herald, the submission will not be registered. For example, we will not use the blazon terms dark// or //light//; we require a Japanese design to use standard European tinctures. A so-called //cross Osmorog// will be blazoned as a //cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel argent//, as this is the blazon we have already used for this charge. We will register an arrangement that would not be registerable under the core style rules, such as //a roundel within roundels in annulo, but we will not create new terms to describe arrangements of charges. #A4BB. What Must Be Documented: Each element of the armory which falls outside the core style rules must be documented. If armory has multiple elements which fall outside the core style rules, the combination of these non-core style elements should be documented, although larger numbers of examples of each non-core style element may suffice, as described below. The overall design of the submission must be similar to the types of designs that document the use of the non-core style elements. In general, examples must match the submission in style and complexity. For example, the attested Gules, a fess sable// is not evidence for the submission //Gules, on a fess sable between three mullets argent three bezants// nor is it evidence for the submission //Gules, a lion sable. #A4CC. Number and Origin of Examples: The number of cases that must be used to demonstrate a pattern of usage depends on how closely they match the submission in style. > #A4C11. Source and Style: All examples should come from a single heraldic style or culture; the submissions should match the style of that culture as well. This is true even when documenting multiple elements which fall outside the core style rules. > #A4C22. Independence: Only independent devices count as examples. Multiple depictions of the same design, or of arms cadenced from an original device, are not independent examples. In general, two depictions of an identical armorial design or very closely related armorial designs from the same part of Europe will be considered not to be independent examples unless their owners can be identified and confirmed to be unrelated. > Some elements or combinations of elements are so closely associated with one family that finding multiple independent examples seems improbable. If independent examples cannot be found, such an element will not be registerable under the individually attested pattern rules. > One example is the design often labeled "Mortimer": Barry Or and azure, on a chief azure two pallets between two gyrons Or and overall an escutcheon argent. While it appears in different tinctures, it is always associated with that family; therefore, there is only one example of this combination of elements. > #A4C33. Number: In general, three closely matching examples of the exact practice are sufficient to demonstrate a pattern. When closely matching examples are not found, six examples that bracket the submission in complexity should be sufficient. In no case will multiple examples of a pattern with ordinaries or simple geometric charges be sufficient evidence of that pattern for animate charges (though that pattern with ordinaries and complex charges that are not animate may be). Likewise, in no case will multiple examples of an element or combination of elements in simple designs be sufficient evidence for that same pattern in complex designs. However, the use of an element or combination of elements in complex designs may allow its use in simpler designs. > For example, "A single black primary charge with a complex outline on a red background" is the type of pattern we would call "closely matching". Some examples that would bracket such a submission are "a red complex-outline primary charge on a black background"(the tinctures match, but are swapped) or "multiple black complex primary charges on a red background". > For submissions with multiple elements which fall outside the style rules, three closely matching examples which all include all of the non-core style elements will be sufficient to allow registration. If no example of the combination can be found, six independent examples of each non-core style practice should be sufficient to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt that the practices might have been used together. As with single non-core style elements, the examples should be of comparable complexity to the submitted design.